Right here, baby!
Boy, am I a son of a bitch! Or should I say ex-son of a bitch!
That’s right–my mother, the aforementioned “bitch,” has died!
[Note to self: When you die, and before you get to Hell, make sure God is aware that this is a joke, and that he loves his mother dearly.]
I just got done eating dinner. Black labrador again, actually. I’m getting kinda tired of it, but, hey, you can’t always have children for dinner.
Haha! I know, I know–I’m a douchefag.
But on to a more serious issue: drive-by shootings. I was involved in a drive-by shooting last Saturday, exactly one week from today. It began with a rap concert in D.C. I was with one of my newer friends, T-Rod, and his “boy” Thug’emz. It was my first rap concert, but, judging from how well T-Rod and Thug’emz grabbed their crotches, I could see immediately that it was probably their tenth or twentieth. And to be fair, it should be said that the art of crotch-grabbing is quite a bit more complex than rappers would let on to: First of all, crotch-grabbing usually goes down when the crotch-grabber is wearing baggy sweatpants. Secondly, you can’t very well rap to the audience and look down at your crotch, so crotch-grabbing requires one to know exactly where his “anatomy” hangs. If you grab too low, you get nothing but cotton, and it will appear to the audience that you have a small penis. On the other hand, if you grab too high, it will look like you are merely trying to adjust your pants, a very “cracka” thing to do. (Note: if the latter were to occur, you could always play it off as if you were actually trying to adjust your pants.) My irrelevant-to-the-story-at-hand point is this: crotch-grabbing requires precise precision, and a knowledgeable knowledge of where exactly you dangle. Now, on to the drive-by shooting!
After the concert we get into T-Rod’s father’s Escalade. We drive out of the parking lot. We start heading down the dark street of D.C. (when I say “the street,” I don’t mean we were driving down the only street in D.C.). So we’re driving along when Thug’emz, from the tinted windows of the back seat, spots a badonkadonk making its way along the sidewalk. And for you “crackas” out there, a badonkadonk is, according to the Urban
Dictionary, “an ‘ebonic’ expression for an extremely curvaceous female behind. Women who
possess this feature usually have a small waist that violently explodes into a
round and juicy posterior (e.g., 34c, 24, 38). Other characteristics would be
moderately wide hips and a large amount of booty cleavage (i.e, depth of
butt-crack).” The boldness appears courtesy of me. So, bouncing along the sidewalk in purple Spandex is a badonkadonk, with a black lady conveniently attached.
This was when it turned ugly (the situation, not the badonkadonk). While Thug’emz was hoopin’ and hollerin’ in the back seat at the waddle of those precious buns, T-Rod reaches across me for the glove compartment. And what does he pull out? Negro’s best friend: a gun.
Now, when that gun made its appearance, I began to really freak out, naturally: I didn’t want him to shoot anybody, “especially not someone with such a prized possession, such a gift from the Heavens,” I said to him. And then he explained it to me: he wasn’t going to kill her for the sake of the mere violence that Negro folk are known for; instead, he was going to kill her because he wanted something that she possessed: the badonkadonk. And that made much more sense to me.
So T-Rod tells me to roll down my window, which I do, of course, because, you know, who’s gonna argue with an armed Negro, whether he’s a friend or not? I roll down my window. T-Rod shouts out to the badonkadonk, “Hey, baby-pie! I gots a little secret to tell ya!” The badonkadonk’d woman spoke back: “Who, me?” T-Rod: “Yeah, you!” And then the badonkadonk’d woman said something else, but none of us understood it. “What?” shouted T-Rod. “No, I can’t hear you! What? Oh, you can’t hear me, either? I says, ‘I gots a little secret to tell ya!’“ The badonkadonk’d woman still couldn’t understand what T-Rod was saying, so T-Rod, known for his temper, pulled over to the side of the road, got out of the Escalade, and approached her. That’s about the same time that the badonkadonk noticed the gun in T-Rod’s hand, so she immediately started kicking and punching him, and all the while she was able to shout insults at T-Rod and scream for help! The first blow went right to T-Rod’s once-grabbed-but-now-kicked crotch, and if you’ve seen any Will Farrell movie, you know right away that that sent T-Rod to the ground, curled up in a ball.
Now, it took Thug’emz and I a little while to comprehend what exactly just happened; one minute we’re doing a drive-by shooting, the next minute we’re practically being mugged! So once it became clear to us, we hastily got out of the Escalade to help our friend. We ran up to the two of them, scaring the woman away. Thug’emz and I were kneeling down by T-Rod, asking him if he were okay. I held his head in my lap, and Thug’emz held an ice-pack which he produced form his pocket to T-Rod’s groin. (Thug’emz always carries ice-packs on him, “just in case.”) I asked T-Rod where his gun was, but he was too dazed to answer. While we’re attending to our wounded buddy, we hear a car door slam some ten feet behind us. We turn around, Thug’emz and I, to see the badonkadonk’d woman behind the wheel of the Escalade! The passenger side window was rolled down, so we had a clear visual of her glossy lips as she shouted these words:
“Hey! Baby-pie! I gots a secret to tell ya!”
She raises her hand, aims T-Rod’s gun at us, and the bullets start flying! Thug’emz took off like a Kenyan in a marathon, a bullet barely grazing his ear. She popped one into T-Rod’s behind, and I got hit in the ankle.
And then the badonkadonk’d woman drives away, tires screeching, making off with T-Rod’s dad’s Escalade!
The police arrived at the scene very quickly (they followed the sound of gunshots and tires on asphault). I’m sure the cops were very entertained when they arrived: I lay slumped over T-Rod’s body in an accidentally sexual-looking way, and T-Rod, from the wound to his arse, was moaning. It looked/sounded bad.
But, as do all great stories, this story has a moral, and while I do not condone handling guns while in a car, if you do decide to commit a drive-by shooting, DO NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR. Just take aim, fire, and keep on truckin’!
Note: While I agree with everything in this post, I didn’t necessarily have the creativity to come up with all of it
——————————————————
The symbol for Republicans is an elephant.
The symbol for Democrats is a donkey, jackass, or simply an ass.
And it’s really quite fitting, if you ask me:
The Seven Pillars of Liberalism
J – Just deny it.
A – Always blame America.
C – Clinton is good, perjury is very bad.
K – Kill innocent babies, not convicted murderers.
A – Al-Qaeda has rights, Christians don’t.
S – Support our troops by rooting against them.
S – Socialism: There is no substitute!
I just visited a blog in which someone posted a complaint that a comic strip from a newspaper had a pro-Christian overtone (or is it undertone?). And people left a lot of comments agreeing with the person, saying it was disgusting and stuff (which it wasn’t at all). Liberals complain when Conservatives talk about Christianity, but there are WAY more liberal/Democratic/anti-Bush/anti-Christian comics in the papers. Point being, when something doesn’t go their way, they whine and complain.
LIBERAL LIE:
Separation of Church and State was never intended to exclude God. Rather, it was intended to ensure religious freedom.
Al Gore (the sore-losing, whining, supposed “environmentalist”) – his house in Nashville, TN, consumes 20 times the amount of energy that the average American home uses. Talk about hypocricy.
George W. Bush never started a war. Ever. Terrorists did when they killed some 3,000 of our people just for the fun of it.
Liberals/Democrats back down at the slightest signs of conflict. They give in. If someone were to punch a liberal in the face, the LIBERAL would apologize to the PUNCHER! They are cowards.
Liberals claim that Bush lied, and therefore should be impeached or imprisoned or killed. However, he didn’t lie. He was misinformed. BUT, when CLINTON lied (under oath, mind you) about cheating on his wife several times, liberals didn’t care. They said it didn’t matter and that he should NOT be impeached. Again, talk about hypocricy.
Democrats supposedly think we all should be able to practice whatever religion we want…except for Christians.
Liberalism: A way of life that conforms to the belief that one should be able to do whatever he or she wants, as long as it feels good or feels right, without regard as to whether it harms someone else or actually IS right; Selfishness.
There is no such thing as global warming. It’s called weather cycles. Right now we are in one of the warmer cycles. Actually, apparently we are in an ice age. Ice ages don’t have all ice. Ice ages go through warm phazes. And we are just in that phaze right now. Scientists say the earth will freeze over again in the very distant future. No global warming. WEATHER CYCLES.
Just got news today that my friend (the only one I hang out with), died two days ago at the gym. He was 21. He was also my “roommate”: he rented one of the upstairs rooms in the townhouse I live in with my mom. He was on the treadmill at the gym for maybe twenty minutes when he stepped off and then just collapsed on the floor. Autopsy reports haven’t found anything abnormal, but the toxicology (or is it toxology?) report will come back in about two weeks. That’s the test to see if there were any poisons/toxins/drugs in his system. Don’t leave comments on my site saying, “I’m sorry, Chris,” or anything like that: I’m not too sad, just disturbed and very shocked. Who knows, maybe it will hit me at the viewing/funeral. Anyway, it’s he I feel sorry for: he had very big plans for his future. A decent life, cut short. Very tragic, and a great shame. He was Jonathan Wooden Sandifer, but he liked to be called JJ (without periods after the Js). I’ll probably write more about this in later days. Maybe a few weeks. And I’ll soon be posting a YouTube video about it (for my own personal records of what went on in my life in February of 2008).
I
recently sent out a few letters to some pro-choice organizations. So
far, I have received one reply, and she avoided all of my
questions/statements, and instead gave me hostility and incorrect
facts that mislead women.
Here is my letter:
Hello
there. I just want to point out a few facts that pro-choicers tend
to hide. Though I’m going to assume that upon hearing that first
sentence, you will immediately dismiss me as a Christian “fanatic,”
or simply delete my e-mail without bothering to become further
educated in the matter.
If
you are still reading, congratulations! You passed the test that
most pro-choicers fail.
To
correct your first assumption, no, I am not a “fanatic” of any
kind. Yes, I am a Christian, but it would be a fallacy to assume
that, just because of one’s religion, he is illogical or knows
nothing or has nothing important to say. I will not argue any
Christian points; only the legal and scientific ones.
If
you are STILL reading this, then you truly have done what most of
your kind refuse to do. And that is to listen. Because when you
listen, you learn. Right?
Moving
along, Jane Roe (the pro-abortion woman of the Roe v. Wade case),
wrote a book shortly after she won the case. The book explains why
abortion is a good thing. The media covered the publishing of this
book greatly, and the book itself received good reviews. Later, in
the mid-90s, the very same “Jane Roe” wrote another book speaking
AGAINST abortion. She changed her mind on the issue, and said that
she was wrong, and that abortion was immoral and selfish. My
question to you is this: why do most pro-choicers not know of this
book? Well, I can answer some of that question: one of the reasons
is because the media didn’t cover that book, didn’t even give it a
review, because the media likes it’s viewers to agree with them. So,
the media says, “We are for abortion,” and therefore they
refuse to present both sides of the story. This is very common among
pro-choicers, as you know–to present only your side of the story,
and to claim the other side as a bunch of religious fanatic nut-jobs.
Well, name-calling is a fallacy, unfortunately for you.
Still
with me? Probably not. But, hey, you’re a pro-choicer–I didn’t
think you would listen to the other argument.
Nonetheless,
I shall go on:
The
fact that the person who made abortion LEGAL now declares it is
immoral and that she was mistaken is only ONE of the reasons why I am
against abortion.
Here
is another reason: according to many medical dictionaries, a fetus is
“a living human organism.” But I bet you won’t post that
on your Web site, right?
Once
I read that a fetus was indeed a living human organism, I thought,
“Wow.” I then looked online for the dictionary’s
definition of “human.” This is what it says, along with
many other definitions:
“of,
pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people.”
That’s the adjective form. A fetus certainly has the same
“characteristics” and the instincts, or “nature,”
of a week-old baby, doesn’t it? Well, according to the dictionary,
that makes it “human.”
Here’s
the noun form of “human”:
“any
individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo
sapiens.” Since this is what a human is, then surely a fetus is
a human, because, as it turns out, a fetus is ALSO a member of the
species Homo sapien.
Now,
let’s see whether or not a fetus is truly alive. According to
science, in order for something to be living, it needs living cells.
Does a fetus have living cells? Yes. Not only is a fetus made up of
the exact same things a 12-year-old and an 80-year-old are made of,
but a fetus “converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes
its cells to divide, multiply, and grow,” just as a 75-year-old’s
cells do. But let’s move on to the official definition of the word
“alive.” It is this: “having life; living; existing;
not dead or lifeless.”
Well,
we’ve already established that a fetus “has life.” We’ve
already established that a fetus is “living.” A fetus
certainly does “exist.” A fetus is not “dead.”
A fetus is not “lifeless.”
Fact
# 1: Fetuses have nerve endings. Do you know what nerve endings are?
They are what allow you to feel pain. Therefore, because a fetus
has nerve endings, it feels pain. It must not be very pleasant to be
vacuumed up, and suctioned out of your home of nine months. Must be
even more unpleasant to have your head pulled off.
Fact
# 2: Fetuses learn things in the womb, and are therefore sentient.
For instance, do you know why babies are comforted when its mother
rocks it in her arms? It is because the rocking motion reminds him
or her of being inside the womb, where the baby was almost always in
a constant rocking motion. Studies also suggest that a baby, when he
or she is just born, recognizes his mother’s voice.
Fact
# 3: Not only do fetuses feel pain, but they cry. The fact that
fetuses learn and feel pain are proof of consciousness.
Fact
# 4: At 7 weeks old, a fetus has detectable brainwaves, one of the
legal criteria in determining whether a person is alive. So if
person does not have brainwaves, he is declared legally dead.
Wouldn’t this mean, then, that if a person DOES have brainwaves, he
should be declared living?
Now,
let’s get to the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment states the
following: “No State shall…deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property….” Well, according to medical textbooks,
a fetus is “life” (a living human organism), and according
to the dictionary, a fetus is a human.
But
is a fetus a “person”? Let us look at our trusty
dictionary. One of the definitions of “person” is this: “a
human being.”
Wait,
what?
A
fetus is not only living, not only human, but a person? Then that
must mean that the Fourteenth Amendment also applies to a fetus, for,
once again, a fetus IS a “person,” the same type of
“person” that the Fourteenth Amendment mentions.
Moving
along, the last time I checked (just now, in fact), one of the
definitions of “murder” was this: “the killing of
another human being.”
Fetus,
according to science = human being.
Murder,
according to dictionary = killing humans.
Abortion
= killing humans.
Abortion,
therefore = murder.
Sure,
sure, I understand that having a baby stuck in you for nine months
can sometimes be a pain and an inconvenience. But is it not there
because of your own actions? Are we not to take responsibility for
what we’ve done? But let’s not play the blame game. Instead, think
of it this way: What is more significant: your inconvenience, or a
living human being?
Here
is a description of something that happened in the courtroom of the
Supreme Court: the attorney for Roe (the pro-choice woman), kept
arguing back and forth with one of the judges. After some more back
and forth talk between Roe’s attorney and the judge, another judge
interrupted the two of them to ask Roe’s attorney a question. That
question was this: “[To take the position of abortion], you’d
have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was
born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the
child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?”
Roe’s
attorney replied: “That is correct.”
In
other words, the judge asked Roe’s attorney if he, Roe’s attorney,
thought that a woman has the right to have her BORN baby killed if
the baby is bothersome to the mother.
Roe’s
attorney said that, yes, he agrees that a woman should be able to
have her BORN baby killed for the convenience of the mother.
My
question for you is this: How is that sane thinking? How is that
logical in the least bit? That is one of the reasons Hitler started
his Holocaust: because he felt that the Jews were an inconvenience in
a way.
Fact
# 5: 99% of abortions are done because of a convenience issue. That
means that 99% of the people who have abortions are doing so because
they just don’t want a baby.
Again:
What is more important: Life? Or convenience?
Fact
# 6: A fetus has human DNA. Then again, so does a hair follicle.
Hair follicles ARE human (adjective), but they are not A human
(noun). A hair follicle cannot grow to be an adult, whereas a fetus
can and does (if only his mother would permit him).
Fact
# 7: In the 1970s, abortion was seen was a great way to reduce child
abuse in the future (apparently we can see the future and know when a
baby will be abused). Here are the statistics: in 1973, there were
approximately 167,000 cases of child abuse. In 1999, there were
approximately 3,244,000 cases of child abuse. As you can see, child
abuse has gotten severely out of hand.
It
is often said that a fetus is merely a “potential” human being.
I ask you this: if a fetus has the potential to become a human being,
what sort of “being” will it become if it fails to meet its
potential? You see, “potential human being” is a nonsense term
which is used by pro-choicers to reduce the guilt of mothers.
“To
me, a fetus is nothing more than a parasite that needs me in order to
survive.” You might be thinking something along those lines,
right? Well, does a 1-month-old not need you in order to survive? A
1-week-old? No–a 1-month old or a 1-week-old baby do indeed need
the mother in order to survive. So are those 1-week-old babies not
human? Does a dying 98-year-old man not often need to be put on life
support in order to live longer? No–he does indeed need that
life-support machine to live. Does that make him not human?
Sometimes
conjoined twins who are joined at the head or at the ribs cannot
survive without the other one because they share a brain or they
share a heart. So because they depend on one another for survival,
does that make them not human? No–conjoined twins, although they
sometimes depend on one another, are indeed human.
“What
about in the case of rape?” you ask. Well, does having an
abortion un-rape you? No.
Actually,
there are these places I’ve heard of called “orphanages,”
and they take in unwanted babies. In fact, the demand for babies
from orphanages by married and unmarried couples is so high, that
there is a waiting list! Babies are being adopted left and right to
loving families who will give them the care and attention that some
pregnant mothers don’t want to give.
“But
don’t I also have the right to choose what I want to do with my own
body?” You might also be asking yourself that as well. And the
answer is this: yes. However, a fetus is not part of your body. A
fetus is totally and wholly it’s own being. It has separate DNA, a
different growth rate, a separate immune system, a separate
circulatory system, a separate endocrine system, and sometimes a
different blood type. Most abortion doctors do not even make the
claim that a fetus is a part of the woman. Indeed, most abortion
doctors–yes, you heard me right–most abortion doctors say that the
baby is its own body, completely.
If
a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant,
then doesn’t the fetus have a right to be in her? And don’t even
MENTION rape, because (a) I already covered that, and (b) abortions
from rape make up less than 1% of all abortions.
If
a fetus was not a separate entity, and it was a male, could it be
said, then, that the mother has a penis? What about two brains? Two
hearts? Four legs, arms, and lungs?
And
why is it that a 21-week-old baby can be born and live and have full
human rights, while an unborn 21-week-old can be aborted because of
the belief that he does NOT have full human rights? Sounds a bit
contradictory.
Also
let it be known parents do not legally own their children; they are
merely the child’s guardian, and a guardian is someone who makes
decisions FOR THE CHILD based on the CHILD’S best interest.
So
the main question for you to ask yourself is this: “Do I really
have the right to go against the Constitution of the United States
and end a separate, living human being’s life for the sake of mere
convenience?”
If
you sat there and read this whole thing, I sincerely, greatly respect
you for your open-mindedness and willfulness to learn.
Sincerely,
Chris
Graham
Manassas,
VA
thechristophershow@yahoo.com
[End of letter]
As I said above, the woman I was
writing to avoided the questions/ignored the facts of my letter, and
was very hostile towards me in her response. But in her response,
she referred me to a few Web articles on the issue. I clicked on the
first one; it didn’t work. I clicked on the second one; it was very
long, but I read it in its entirety, as any open-minded person would
do. After reading the article, I wrote back to the woman who SENT me
the article, and I quoted many different things from the article and
then refuted them, as you will see. (Oh, and she also does not
believe I am an atheist, because if I were an atheist, “surely” I
would agree with her on the issue.) Again, this is my SECOND letter
to the lady, whom I have not yet heard back from.
Thank
you for replying to my polite letter in a hostile manner. You’ve
certainly done what I expected you to do.
So
I see that it matters a great deal to you whether I am an atheist or
not. Could this be proof that, if I were a Christian, you would have
ignored everything I said? What does it matter if I am an atheist or
not? Does it truly matter to you? Can’t a Christian be just as
logical about certain things, such as the Constitution?
Question:
Why is it, sometimes, that when a person kills a pregnant woman, he
is charged with two accounts of murder?
Question:
No matter if you think abortion is right or wrong, abortion is still
un-Constitutional, because, as the Fourteenth Amendment says, a
person has the right to life, and a fetus, as I have proven, is a
person.
You
say in one of your articles (I clicked on the first and second one,
and only the second one worked) that “anti-choicers”
(pro-lifers, anti-abortionists…same thing) often make exceptions to
their own “rules,” if you will, such as in the case of rape
and some other cases that you mentioned. I am well aware that that
is what some anti-abortionists think. Most of them do not, however.
Either way, abortions from rape make up less than 1% of abortions.
And either way, it is still killing a human life. Abortion, as I
said, does not “un-rape” you. You still have to deal with
the “shame” people sometimes feel from being raped, whether
impregnated or not.
From
the second article: “We are not obligated by law to risk our
lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that
might be.” So you admit that risking your life to save another
life is a noble thing. So why not make the noble choice? Pregnant
women who want abortions, according to your definition of noble,
never make the noble choice.
From
the second article: “Even if a fetus can be said to have a right
to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another
human being.” To take this opinion, you would have to agree
that one of the conjoined twins in my first letter does not have the
right to life, because it is using the other twin’s body to survive.
Also,
what do you have to say about the shameful opinion of Roe’s attorney
that a mother should have the right to have her BORN baby killed if
it is bothersome to her? Does that sound logical? Reasonable?
Sane?
You
say that to “loan out her body against her will” is, well,
against her will. How, exactly, is it “against her will”,
when she willfully submitted to having sex? This, of course, does
not apply to the “rape” case. I have already covered that
one.
“[Pro-lifers']
argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women,
not men, for their sexual behavior.” This statement, along with
many other statements made by pro-choice women, points to the fact
that the only thing the pregnant women care about is themselves.
This is called “selfish” in dictionaries. The simple fact
that you and other pregnant women think that pregnancy is a
“punishment” shows us that you do, in fact, feel a little
guilty for your pregnancy. After all, one should only be punished if
he is guilty, right? Pregnancy is not a punishment. Pregnancy is
what occurs in life after someone has sex. It is a natural thing.
Yes, it is a consequence, but it is a good consequence. Try not to
view it as a punishment of nature or God or Satan or whatever you
believe. To view something as truly beautiful as a sperm implanted
in an egg and then growing to be a living and breathing and active,
usually happy person, and then to say that it’s a “punishment”
shows a truly warped perspective of live (not to mention a lack of
respect for it). Perhaps women feel the need to abort in order to
punish the men? I don’t know. If that is the case, it certainly
does not make sense because, unless the man raped you, you were just
as eager for
as
he was for you. Again, pro-lifers aren’t out to “punish”
women. That is absolutely absurd. The pro-lifer’s agenda is to do
the “noble” thing, and save “living human organisms,”
as the medical textbooks say.
Please
respond to my points on adoption in the other letter.
“Even
if a fetus were a human being with a right to life [which the article
previously admitted], this right doesn’t automatically overrule a
woman’s right to choose.” What about the baby’s Constitutional
right to live? Is a life not more important than mere inconvenience?
Ah, but the article, I just read, says that being pregnant is not
just a “mere convenience.” This is what the article says
are the effects of pregnancy: “…profound physical,
psychological, and long-lasting consequences….” Well, at
least the article is noble enough, moral enough, to acknowledge that
pregnancy is a “consequence” for the mother’s and father’s
actions. Gaining 20 or 30 pounds is hardly “profound.”
There are much, much, much worse physical things that can happen to a
person. Gaining weight is nothing. Sure, it’s harder to walk, to
bend down, and to sit. But I hardly see how the inconvenience of not
being able to walk pretty, to bend down, and to sit comfortably
outweigh the side effects of abortion (and I’m not just talking about
the death of a “living human”; I am talking about the
56-or-so-% of women who feel strong guilt after abortions, and the
other [in-the-teens]% of women who absolutely regret their
abortions). And the side-effects of pregnancy are not at all
“long-lasting” in the big scheme of things. It’s not even
a year.
“…others
wish they’d never been born [talk about a rarity]. Life is not a
picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for
leading dysfunctional lives.” But you are right that life is
not a picnic. And to have an abortion based on the fact that you
believe the baby will have a bad life must mean that you can see the
future. And this quote is especially misleading to women,
unfortunately, because babies placed in orphanages are almost
immediately adopted to loving families. It is the 8-year-old orphans
who have been taken from an abusive home who have a higher risk of
being dysfunctional, and NOT the infants. Shame on whoever wrote
that article for truly misleading women.
“Ultimately
though, to have a ‘right to life’ requires that one be an individual
capable of living an independent existence. One must ‘get a life’
before one has a ‘right to life.’ A fetus is not a separate
individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for
its growth.” Where to begin? Some babies are born prematurely
at 7 months and they have a high survival rate. This is also the age
for some abortions. According to this quote, “to have a ‘right
to life’ requires that the individual is capable of living an
independent existence.” Well that means that some aborted
babies do indeed have the right to life, because they ARE capable of
living outside the womb. The article then goes on to say that one
must get a life before he has a right to life. Well, a fetus does
indeed have life, for it is alive (it’s cells are alive and
constantly growing in the EXACT manner of a living adult). “A
fetus is not a separate individual.” This is perhaps the most
misleading of information in the entire article. Most doctors who
perform abortions will tell you that a fetus IS a separate
individual. Just because something is inside you does not mean it is
not separate. The food you eat is not a part of you just because it
is inside you. But yeah, most abortion doctors disagree with that
statement. “[A fetus] depends on [its mother] for its growth.”
I congratulate whoever wrote this article for actually including a
bit of fact! And then I un-congratulate her for failing to point out
that a 1-week-old also depends on its mother for its growth. So,
according to this article, that 1-week-old is not alive, and it has
no right to live. To take the position of this article, one would
also have to agree with the following statements (unless it wants to
appear hypocritical): “A person who depends on his pacemaker for
life has no right to live.” And this one: “A person on
life-support has no right to live.” I thought you would
disagree with those statements. So how is it that a baby of any age
who depends on his mother for survival does not have the right to
live?
“Since
fetuses are physically incapable of believing, speaking, or
assembling, they cannot have or exercise any constitutional rights.”
Are you aware that many severely retarded people cannot form their
own beliefs, cannot speak, and cannot “assemble”? This
must mean that retarded people “cannot have Constitutional
rights.” Interesting.
“‘Everyone
has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned’— if
fetuses did have rights, this would outlaw forced pregnancy!”
How is pregnancy an arbitrary detainment or imprisonment? It
certainly isn’t arbitrary, it certainly isn’t a detainment, and it
most definitely is not imprisonment.
“The
normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain
size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early
embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as
human beings.” Well, neither does that baby girl who was
recently born with four working, full-length arms. Neither did the
Elephant Man (or anybody, for that matter, with a severe case of
elephantiosis). It can easily be argued that chimpanzees greatly
resemble human beings. They share “common attributes” with
humans, they are the size of young children, and they have the basic
shape, and they are NOT disabled in any way. So, with your argument,
they must be human. Or we can also look at it another way: Werewolf
Syndrome. Werewolf Syndrome is a disease that humans can get. It is
a disease which makes the human become covered from head to toe (and
even on his or her face) in thick, dark hair. To me, the only thing
that resembles a human in the people who have this disease is their
“basic shape.”
“Fetuses
cannot breathe or make sounds.” You know very well that this is
not true. Not one abortion doctor will agree with that quote.
“Finally,
the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory
(which aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after
birth).” There are actually rare cases of people who remember
being born, and this is proven. The author (my favorite, in fact)
Ray Bradbury is one of these people, along with my mom’s friend.
Please
respond to the fact that fetuses learn while in the womb (for one
thing, they learn to be comforted by the rocking motion of the
mother, and they already feel a strong emotional attachment to the
mother).
Please
do not avoid any of these points as you did in my first e-mail. I
almost feel the need to resend the letter, because you absolutely
avoided everything in it.
Be
thankful that your mother was pro-life at the time of your birth.
Chris
Graham
Manassas,
VA
[END
OF LETTER]
Now,
I also got into a debate with someone over the Internet. I will keep
his name anonymous (I don’t actually know his real name; only his
“pseudonym”). Here are his arguments FOR abortion: Red
text is the man speaking. Green
text is me speaking.
“…the
uterus belongs to the mother. She can do whatever she wants with it.
It’s HER body, not the fetus.”
“…you
argue that because a uterus is the woman’s body, the fetus INSIDE the
uterus is her body. That’s like saying, ‘You’re in the house that I
own, so I have the right to decide the fate of your life.’ Sure, the
mother can do what she wants to do with her uterus, but not if it
ends the life of another human being. A fetus is living (living
cells), and it is a human being, because it is a member of the
species Homo sapien. This is the same law that applies
anywhere else–I can do what I want with something I own, but not if
it ends the life of another.”
“No
one can force [you] to donate a kidney, even if it would save a
nation at war, potentially saving millions. Likewise, a [woman]
doesn’t…have to serve as a fetal incubator, even if it will save
the life of one fetus.”
“You’re
right, I do not have to donate my kidney. However, it would be the
moral, noble, and unselfish thing to do. Why don’t women ever make
the moral, noble, unselfish decision? And the baby isn’t there by
mistake. If you believe in God, God put it there. If you don’t
believe in God, then the woman put the baby there. She knew what she
was getting into, she knew the risks, and now has to take
responsibility for her own actions.”
“[Abortion]
is not murder, it is killing a bunch of cells as the [woman] deems
them undesirable.”
“Shooting a
12-year-old convenience-store robber in the face [although much more
merciful than abortion] is ALSO merely ‘killing a bunch of cells as
the convenience-store clerk sees desirable.’ There is absolutely no
difference.”
And
when I told him that fetuses feel pain, this is what he said:
“The
fetus feels no pain. I know because I was one.”
With
this argument, the man is saying that he actually remembers being
inside his mother’s womb. While this is highly unlikely, there are,
in fact, some people who have proven that they remember being born.
Though if he has the brain capacity to be able to remember being in
the womb, he should also be able to understand that the reason he did
not feel pain when he was in there is because he was not aborted.
Also, the man contradicts
himself here: he claimed he was conscious in the womb (because, as he
says, he remembers being there), whereas earlier he claimed that a
fetus not only does not feel pain, but is merely a mass of tissue, or
“a bunch of cells,” and not a conscious human being.
I
then went on to point out the following facts to him:
“Regarding
the myth of ‘back-alley abortions,’ and how more women died of
abortion when it was illegal than they do now, Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League,
admits that his group lied about the number of women who died from
illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972.
‘We spoke of 5,000 – 10,000 deaths a year….I confess that I knew
the figures were totally false….it was a useful figure, widely
accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest
statistics?’
“Dr. Anne Speckhard, in a 1985 University of
Minnesota study, researched ‘long-term manifestations of abortion’
(5-10 years), and found that 81% of mothers reported preoccupation
with their aborted child, 54% had nightmares, 35% had perceived
visitations with their child, and 96% felt their abortion had taken a
human life. Immediately after an abortion, many women report a
feeling of relief, but guilt and depression frequently follow. A
national poll found that at least 56% of women experience a sense of
guilt over their decision, though the pollster himself acknowledged
that many women will not even admit having had an abortion. In fact,
a five-year study shows that 25% of women who have had abortions
sought out psychiatric care, versus just 3% of women who have not had
abortions.”
MARGARET
SANGER
Again,
I don’t expect a pro-choicer to read a pro-lifer’s e-mail in its
entirety. By ALLOWING ABORTIONS, we are
GOING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. This is not an argument of
morals, this is an argument of legality and how the Constitutional
rights are not being given out to 4,000 babies a day, thus killing
them.
Here are some interesting facts
that pro-choicers deliberately hide from women in order to keep their
business running (yes, these are actual facts with zero opinions):
Margaret Sanger, the founder of
Planned Parenthood and a strong advocate of abortion, said the
following: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to
one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret
Sanger believed in eugenics.
Eugenics is what Hitler believed
in, thus starting his Holocaust.
Margaret Sanger supported
Hitler’s idea that Jews were “unclean” and should be
“sterilized” so that they cannot have babies.
She
thought the same thing about black people. (There are many
anti-Margaret Sanger organizations run by blacks because of this
fact.)
“We do not want word to get out that we want to
exterminate the Negro population” is another quote made by
Margaret Sanger, the woman who supports abortion.
Another
fact: Abortion clinics were ORIGINALLY set up with the intention of
slowing the population growth of blacks and other racial groups that
were considered mentally or otherwise inferior.
Margaret
Sanger said that 7 out of 10 people were “feeble-minded,”
and that all feeble-minded people should be quarantined from the rest
of society and live in their own communities.
Margaret Sanger,
supporter of abortion, thought that mentally retarded kids and
physically handicapped kids did not deserve to live.
Margaret
Sanger ALSO created the Negro Project, designed to sterilize
unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of
society. She also said, “Colored people are like human weeds and
are to be exterminated.”
To agree with abortion, you are
agreeing with an insane person.
Here are some testimonies of
abortion doctors who are giving you just the FACTS:
2) Former abortion
counselor, Nita Whitten, says, “It’s a lie when they tell you
they’re doing it to help women, because they’re not. They’re doing it
for the money.”
4) Former
abortionist, Joseph Randall, M.D., says, “The picture of the
baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff
couldn’t take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed
to see the ultrasound.”
5) Former abortionist, David
Brewer, M.D., says, “My heart got callous against the fact that
I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me to
what abortion really was.”
Q.
What is the governing force behind the
abortion industry?
A. Money. It
is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry
in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so
profitable.
Q. In what way is the
woman deceived?
A. Every woman
has two questions, “Is it a baby?” and Does it hurt?”
The abortionist must answer “NO.” He/she must lie to secure
the consent of the woman and the collection of the clinic’s fee. The
women were told that we were dealing with a “product of
conception” or a “glob of tissue.” They were told that
there would be only slight cramping, whereas, in reality, an abortion
is excruciatingly painful.
Q. What
type of counseling was offered at the clinics?
A. We
didn’t do any real counseling. We sold abortion.
Q. How
did you dispose of an aborted baby?
A. We
put them down the garbage disposal. Some second and third trimester
babies’ muscle structure is so strong that the baby will not come
apart, so they must be disposed of through trash receptacles.
Q.
Abortion is supposed to be a “safe”
experience. What complications did you witness?
A. In
the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing over 500
abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500. Common
complications that take place are perforations or tears in the
uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies. The doctor might cut
or harm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A
complication that is rarely publicized is the one in which the doctor
perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through the vagina,
resulting in colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, some must live
with the colostomy for the remainder of their lives.
Please
do the right thing and provide the FACTS, as I have done here, for
your customers. I am sure they would much appreciate it.
Yes, I met another one. We’ve had lunch a few times already. Three times, actually.
And I finally asked her on a date. She said yes. So that’s this
coming Saturday, three days from now. I’m pretty excited. I’m
bringing her daisies, her favorite flower (unbeknownst to me at the
time of my decision on that flower). And I think we’re going to watch
an indie horror movie called Cigarette Burns at her house. That was the very loose plan the last time we spoke, anyway.
And there’s something so uncertainly special about her. Yet I’m certain about it. It’s odd, I admit. She has habits I don’t like–won’t go into them for the whole world to read (not that anybody reads these)–but I think I can look past them…for now. I mean, if this ever ended up being a long-term thing, I would expect sacrifices to be made, just as I would make sacrifices for her. (One BIG sacrifice in particular, also not to be mentioned here!) I feel as if I’ve known her since I was a baby, just two toddlers having fun with each other, pulling each other’s hair and cooing at our baby rattles; as if this is the beginning of something big. And it may be. I don’t know. I haven’t seen any signs so far.
So who is this girl? Name’s Simone. Isn’t that beautiful? I’ve always liked that name for a girl. For a boy it’s kind of weird. But she’s a girl, so it all works out.
I took little Sarah to the annual
Christmas parade in Old Town Anamas [pronounced ANNA-maw]. She loved
to go every year, as do the other children, for it marked the two
weeks left until Christmas arrived. It was a special holiday for
them all. It was a good thing, however that the other two both had
doctors appointments that morning….
After half an hour of
waiting, sitting on the sidewalk, the faint and distant sounds of
gaiety, pure joy, drifted up and over the street; the glimmer from
the hub of a wheel of the first parade float, a Santa Claus, complete
with fake beard and golden sash round the waist, “stuck” in a red
cardboard chimney, pointed at and cheered by the small ones in the
crowd.
“Ho, ho, ho!” he
laughed. “Merrrry Christmas!”
The scent, the glorious
scent of funnel cakes with powdered sugar sprinkled heavily on top;
of steaming hot coffee for the other adults; of merriment, for
indeed, merriment has a scent all of its own–it is the smell of
cinnamon sticks and green tea and peppermints, milk slowly heating on
the stove as a fire crackles in, and warms, the next room while one’s
children line up in front of it on their stomachs to bathe in the
fire’s glory, to soak up the other hundreds of fine scents that a
fire alone has to offer.
The air was freezing cold,
but all hearts in the area were growing warmer and warmer. And all in
one motion, I stood up, lifted seven-year-old Sarah from her chair,
and held her up there, high above the rest of the crowd. As she sat
up there, she sang Christmas songs, and it was the most wonderful
sound in the world at that moment. Her voice, small but powerful;
her hair, sweeping and breezing across that beautiful face of hers;
and her cheeks, cutely red, rounded, and chapped.
Shoulders hurt, but upon
them she remained, until:
Oh, can’t you just see the
look on Sarah’s face when Rudolph, that red-nosed reindeer of only
the stories and her dreams, came up to her and hugged her and placed
a giant candy cane into her palms, choosing her for her happiness,
for her perfection as a child? In Sarah’s opinion, sucking on a
candy cane until all she had left was a pure white sliver of
sweetness was the ultimate joy of the Christmas holiday. And
now…these days…God….
Song in the air.
Rainbow confetti, littering
the street.
Big, fake presents under
big, fake Christmas trees.
Horses, donkeys, marching
bands—-all necessary to complete the holiday.
And the silver bells, the
golden bells, the sleigh bells! All magnificent, all
absolutely and perfectly, wonderfully beautiful noises!
And amongst it all, a
deafening sound; it was not the roaring crowd; it was not the bells
of the sleighs, nor the tolling bell of the Presbyterian church up
the street; it was not the furious clomping of horses’ hooves.
It was a gunshot.
The parade stopped dead,
everyone screaming as they ducked to the ground without a thought,
grabbing their children on their way down.
Except
Sarah was not there–she was already on the ground, lying still, and
breathing no more.
So I got her phone number. She seemed awful reluctant, though, to give it to me.
The ship’s sail was taut in the wind
But was rippling with such ferocity
It appeared as though it would rip
cleanly
From the mast at any moment.
She was empty, yet sailing she went–
On and on,
Towards the horizon,
Towards the End of the earth,
Into the days of tomorrow,
Into the sunset like a drifting cliché,
Until she went over the edge,
Landing in the palm of a gentle god,
A god who takes care of those he loves,
And who loves the things he’s created;
Who created all we see–
Clouds, flowers, mountains, the earth
itself–
And all we cannot see–
Love, fear…and the beautiful horizon
over which
Our tiny vessel fell into his warm,
welcoming hand,
Saved from demise,
And brought to a river of gold in all
it’s wonder.
And where can we find this river and
the ship
Which sails its waters?
Take a boat into the ocean;
Drop the oars into the water,
Left to sink or rot, whichever
nature finds most poetic;
And drift.
Let the current of the ocean lead you
to the river.
But you must have faith in your gut
…And love in your heart.
© Chris Graham
Recent Comments